Interesting People mailing list archives
NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:06:47 -0500
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:45:28 -0800 From: Shannon McElyea <shannon () swisscreek com> Subject: FW: NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors To: David Farber <dave () farber net> did not see this on IP... \----------------------------------------------------------/ Op-Ed Columnist: Behind Closed Doors December 17, 2003 By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON - When George W. Bush was running for president, he was inspiring on the subject of privacy. But it was not your privacy or mine he was talking about. He has gone all out to keep his administration's energy-legislation deliberations from public scrutiny. Cast your mind back to the White House task force, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, that came up with the stalled Bush oil policy. Democrats complained that it met frequently with Enron and other energy executives but blew off environmental lobbyists. Bush and Cheney, sensitive to charges of being too close to the oil industry, clammed up. That secrecy violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, claimed the rightist Judicial Watch and the leftist Sierra Club as they sued for access. Cheney's lawyers dumped 30,000 pieces of wastepaper on them from around the bureaucracy, but not one memo produced by Cheney's group. Only federal officials were members of that task force, Bush lawyers argued, so advice from outside consultants is none of the public's business. A federal court ruled against the stonewalling, and an appeals court let the ruling to allow discovery stand. But the administration escalated the case to "the president's constitutional authority to gather candid advice from his advisers" plus "fundamental separation of powers questions." Up it went to the Supreme Court. This week the justices, who apparently have nothing better to do next year, agreed to hear the Cheney appeal. The administration's eagerness to slam the door in the snoopy public's face will now be argued before the high court during political primaries and probably decided in July, right before the issue-hungry Democratic political convention. Are Republicans out of their collective mind? Why the hots to hide? A decade ago, Hillary Clinton tried to pull the same kind of wool over the people's eyes about her health care task force, but the D.C. appeals court ruled that her consultants were "de facto members" of the official group and stripped away the secrecy. Remember how we raised the roof about all those phony executive privilege claims as Clinton lawyers tried to jam a cone of silence on top of Secret Service agents? Remember how we fought for the right of Paula Jones to subject the high and mighty to discovery? What is sauce for the Clintons is sauce for the Bushies. An ordinarily astute S.A.O. (senior administration official) assures me that no potential embarrassment is at the root of this unnecessary fight to the finish, and that it's just the principle of the thing. Let us assume that the court's surprising willingness to hear the case - despite the appeals court's refusal to overturn the district court's discovery permission - augers ill for government in the sunshine. Assume, too, that Ted Olson, the most respected solicitor general since Erwin Griswold, is at his most persuasive in seeking a landmark decision holding that "any discovery" would be unconstitutional, thereby placing the vice president high above the law. The principle of the thing is wrong. Of course the president's cabinet and staff should be able to offer reasonable confidentiality to outsiders in return for candid advice. But when it comes to domestic legislation and not sensitive national-security affairs, the names and the advice of outside consultants and lobbyists should be discoverable according to law. How's this for a practical principle: don't use a sledgehammer to swat a gnat. The Supreme Court, courageously and at some cost, did its bit for the Bush administration's electoral legitimacy. It should not now be called upon at re-election time to erect a high barrier to finding out who is advising whom about the public's business behind closed doors. Beyond this case, even when it comes to federal officials, the argument that only secrecy ensures candor is specious. Presidents record and blab; speechwriters remember and tell all; most advisers want their "private" advice to become known. When, in a memoir, I protected a colleague by not mentioning his unpopular advice in an Oval Office meeting, he objected furiously to having been left out of history. If "freedom" is the word Bush and Cheney want as the hallmark of their administration, they should begin with freedom of information. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/opinion/17SAFI.html?ex=1072869915&ei=1&en= ec5a87be6571fe52 --------------------------------- Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact onlinesales () nytimes com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help () nytimes com. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- NYT Op-Ed William Safire : Behind Closed Doors Dave Farber (Dec 19)